Republicans worthy of praise

“No, this isn’t a joke thread. Many on the left (and center) have spoken warmly of John McCain, but there are other independent minded Republicans worthy of praise. I’ll start off with this one: Representative Bill Thomas who defied a Bushwa to turn our houses of worship into party machines. Way to go Bill!


Thomas takes on leadership
By Bob Cusack

Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) this month thwarted a coordinated effort by House GOP leaders, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and an outspoken conservative lawmaker to change IRS rules so that religious leaders could speak more freely on political issues.

Thomas’s reluctance to embrace legislative language favored by leading Republican voices underscores the power that the Ways and Means Committee chairman wields in the House. It also has left some legislators and the religious right fuming at him.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) endorsed language that would alter the IRS’s policy on religious leaders and then urged Thomas to put the provision in his corporate tax bill.

But Thomas, who is not fond of being told what to include in his legislation, drafted his own version of what Hastert, Gillespie and Jones wanted, sources say. The “safe harbor” provision for religious leaders that Thomas put in his foreign sales corporation/extraterritorial income (FSC/ETI) bill immediately attracted criticism from Jones as well as from liberal groups.

continued on 'The Hill'...”

“What you lack in intelligence you more than make up for in stupidity.”

“Violin is giving praise to a Republican and you call him stupid? Hey microweeney, vienna sausage boy......is your brain as small as your d_ck?

waiting for your typically stupid, lame,limp comeback

:)”

“It's hard to believe Bill Thomas opposed that language (tremendous suck-butt that he is). There's more to this story.”

“Churches can and should talk about moral issues, but they shouldn't go political. God is neither Dem or Repub, nor does He care what political affiliation we are.

And it's not a Bushwa concept, Violin, Al Gore raised political cash speaking in a Buddhist Temple, the 'Reverend' Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton speak politics in churches all the time, and John Kerry has used the pulpit directly, himself, in church, to speak politics. What a shame.”

“So the 1st amendment should apply to Michael Moore, but not to religous leaders.”

“And the money you donate to your churches should go directly to Ed Gillespie I'll bet, LOL”

“I wasn't attacking his message. I was attacking him personally. 8)

Now what's your major malfunction?”

“(the correct quote is: "What is your major malfunction, Numbnuts?")”

“Please accept my apology. 8)”

“Tilt, too funny, I was just listening to some FMJ wave files a few minutes ago. Of course I listened to that one.”

“Hey --- It's a Classic.

and Ya Don't Mess with the Classics! LOL”

“Do you know how difficult it is picking out relatively clean clips to play for the secretary who hasn't seen the movie. I decided to skip the clip about the guy from Texas.”

“Tilt,

You need to get out of the house. Do you have a life outside of this website? Do you think the energy you spend here can be put into something productive to improve your miserable life?”

“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to that country.

Fifty-four percent of those polled said it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, compared with 41 percent who expressed that sentiment in early June.

Most respondents to the poll, 55 percent, also said they don't believe the war has made the United States safer from terrorism -- rejecting an argument that President Bush has repeatedly advanced in his rationale for the war.”

“Congressman splits with GOP, calls war 'mistake'

As his 13th term ends, Nebraskan says intelligence on Iraq didn't justify action

Associated Press

LINCOLN, NEB. - A top Republican congressman has broken from his party in the final days of his House career, saying he believes the U.S. military assault on Iraq was unjustified and the situation there has deteriorated into "a dangerous, costly mess."

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action," Rep. Doug Bereuter wrote to his constituents.

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," he said.

Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He is stepping down after 13 terms to become the president of the Asia Foundation effective Sept. 1.

The Asia Foundation is a nonprofit organization that supports programs in Asia to improve governance and law, economic reform and development.

The letter, sent to constituents who have contacted him about the war, was reported by the Lincoln Journal Star in its Wednesday editions.

In 2002, Bereuter had spoken out in support of a House resolution authorizing the president to go to war.

President Bush has continued to argue the war was justified because Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the United States, his neighbors and the people of Iraq.

Most Republicans and top administration officials say the war was justified even though no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

However, after a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded in early July that intelligence agencies had provided false assessments of the Iraqi threat before the war, the panel's Republican chairman — Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas — said Congress might not have approved the Iraq war had lawmakers known the truth.

Bereuter said as a result of the war, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower, and our alliances are weakened."

Lincoln City Council member Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican, is facing off against Democratic state Sen. Matt Connealy to replace Bereuter.”

“It is a painful and disturbing process, but America and everyone involved in the decision-making and oversight process (the Executive Branch and Congress) must learn from the errors and failures related to waging a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the aftermath of that war. The toll in American military casualties and those of civilians, physical damages caused, financial resources spent, and the damage to the support and image of America abroad, all demand such an assessment and accounting.

Certainly, all the facts and impacts are not yet apparent, and the violence and financial and diplomatic costs of the Iraqi aftermath continue to accumulate. However, I must give this account before I leave Congress on Aug. 31, 2004.

Apparent Intelligence Failures

The first, and most basic, conclusion is that it appears there was a massive failure or misinterpretation of intelligence concerning the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and supply stocks of Saddam, both by the American agencies and leading decision-makers, but also on the part of allies and other leading countries.

The fact that Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iran and Iraqi Kurds, that chemical weapons and biological and nuclear development programs were discovered after the first Gulf War, and that Saddam so strenuously resisted unfettered international inspection efforts in recent years, all contributed to the general conclusion that he had reconstructed his chemical weapons stock and was weaponizing biological agents. There was also the suspicion that his efforts to surreptitiously import certain dual-use technology were part of an effort to reconstitute his nuclear development program. The conclusion generally reached was that he had at least some of these types of WMD and that he would use them again against countries of the neighborhood. Even more directly troubling to America was the concern that he would share them with terrorist groups. It was a combination of these conclusions and fears that were the primary justification for the preemptive military action against Iraq. Most importantly, however, it was the fear that his WMD would be shared with terrorists when it served his purposes. These concerns caused this member of Congress to vote to authorize the use of military force by the president, even preemptive military force, if the conditions specified in House Joint Resolution 114 of October 2002 were judged by the president to have been met. That resolution that authorized the use of military force was passed by large majorities in both houses of Congress, and I believe that for most members the element of a WMD-terrorist link was a key factor.

Evidence that substantial Iraqi chemical and biological WMD stocks existed at the time the war began or that they covertly had been destroyed just before the conflict began still may be discovered. Certainly, there were such chaotic conditions after the "military war" ended, with huge weapons dumps and laboratories left unguarded or undiscovered for months, that evidence and supplies could have been hidden or destroyed.

However, revelations in the unredacted portions of reports recently released by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence point to a massive intelligence failure by the American and foreign intelligence agencies, and even more disturbingly, leave unresolved whether inadequate or questionable elements of intelligence and sources of intelligence were used to justify military action. (Many members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I serve, have also reached some of the same conclusions as the Senate Committee – and that includes me.)

Knowing now what I know about the reliance on the tenuous or insufficiently corroborated intelligence used to conclude that Saddam maintained a substantial WMD arsenal, I believe that launching the preemptive military action was not justified. However, the inability of the administration to clearly establish a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam, despite the intimations of various administration leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney, is no surprise to me. In my floor statement of Oct. 8, 2002, during the debate on the "military use of force" resolution, I said, "The administration cannot yet present incontrovertible evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam."

Skewing of Intelligence to Justify the War?

Of course, one of the major controversies yet remaining is whether key individuals in the administration skewed the intelligence made available to them to justify military action against Saddam's Iraq or, whether coerced, intimidated, or sympathetic American intelligence analysts and managers gave them the findings they seemed to want in order to justify military action. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee reports finding no evidence of such pressure and I do not believe that individual members of the House Committee have such evidence. Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action. That would be difficult to determine definitively without "a smoking gun."

Preparations for War and the Aftermath

Here, I first refer you to an excerpt from my floor statement during the Oct. 8, 2002, debate on House Joint Resolution 114. You will note that I raised four questions of the administration illustrative of additional questions that could be asked, in an attempt to determine whether "the Executive Branch had given adequate consideration and provided contingency planning and resources" for a military action against Iraq and its aftermath, and if not, to stimulate such consideration before any military action was taken against Iraq. I can only conclude now that it failed on questions #1, #3, and #4.

I was very interested to read Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times of April 23, 2004, because his words, which follow, succinctly mirrored my own thoughts:

"Just as experts on peacekeeping predicted before the war, the invading force was grossly inadequate to maintain postwar security. And this problem was compounded by a chain of blunders: doing nothing to stop the postwar looting, disbanding the Iraqi Army, canceling local elections, appointing an interim council dominated by exiles with no political base and excluding important domestic groups.

"The lessons of the last few weeks are that the occupation has never recovered from those early errors. The insurgency, which began during those early months of chaos, has spread."

Of course, the insurgency has grown dramatically since Krugman wrote those words in April. While the American military deaths have declined from the highest levels of April and May during the U.S. offensive against the terrorists, there is still an average of fifty tragic U.S. military deaths per month at the time this is being written.

It should be noted, too, that the administration received many warnings not to make those very errors. Perhaps the warning most frequently given by reputable sources was to avoid disbanding the Iraqi army, but to instead immediately reconstitute it. Many of those Iraqi army personnel became insurgents or, at best, disenchanted. Now that an army and police forces are being trained and deployed, they are targets for the organized and increasingly motivated insurgency. The same is the case for the Iraqis who have assumed leadership roles at the national or local level; that violence has intensified since the "handover" in late June.

In my view, another fundamental and predictable failure was placing the responsibility for reconstruction and interim governance in the hands of the Department of Defense. The State Department, and particularly its Agency for International Development, would no doubt have handled these responsibilities more expeditiously and economically, and with less questionable procurement and contractual practices. These are responsibilities normally assigned to State, and it has a better experience base for such programs.

Finally, I would reiterate the frequent criticism that the American and coalition forces were inadequate in number to take effective control of Iraq when the initial military action was completed. This was a misjudgment from the top levels of the Defense Department and contrary to the estimates of the former U.S. Army Chief of Staff who was sharply criticized by the DOD civilian leadership. Of course, that inadequacy was accentuated by both the unexpected rejection by Turkey for the movement of one U.S. Army division across that country to enter northern Iraq and by the unwillingness of a number of European countries to supply troops for the coalition because of their opposition to the war.

The Middle East neighborhood and the rest of the world is no doubt safer from attack and subversion now that Saddam has been removed from power. The oppressed Kurdish and Shi'ite Iraqis no longer have to fear for their lives from his government, and the same is true of other Iraqis whom he punished as enemies of the state.

Was the preemptive military strike to remove Saddam in America's best interest? That is a question that receives a sharply divided response in our country with the trend being against the preemptive military action we launched. I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition. The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible. Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. From the beginning of the conflict it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world.”

“How long before the smear campaign begins?”

“As soon as the usual crowd gets to their computers!”

“He and Richard Clarke must have been gay lovers. No wait! He and Paul Oneill were in the same fraternity... No no, here it is: He and Joe Wilson shared Valerie Plame! Yeah that's it.”

“Man Phaed, I’ve heard of wife swapping but politician swapping? That’s hot man! The great state of Ohio will swap David “I’m Phucking Nuts” Kusinich for, well, anyone…

LOL!”

“Do I hear a politician draft on the horizon.”

“No No, Nigal, that's CIA Operative-swapping.”

“OMG one rep. lawmaker is against the war, woe is me, head for the hills. Oh and don't tell Violin or Phaed that there are democrat lawmakers who support the war, it might ruin their fantastical view of the world.”

“Clear a spot on your Bumper, Bison.”

“Bison has a point - still, it is encouraging that someone is willing to admit his mistake. And yeah, there are plenty of Dems who don't have that courage.”

“"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing... This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy... There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

- Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut”

“What do you expect? Even the republicans in New England are liberal. LOL!”

“"This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country."
- Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia”

“Thanks for showing how the republican party has such a variety of opinions and views and how there is plenty of room for all.”

“There's probably just as wide a spectrum between Lieberman and Ted Kennedy on the other side of the fence, Nigal. Not buying your argument for one nano-second!”

“OK, let’s take your example Tree. Who gets the mic the most? Who gets the sound bites? Who is considered the general face of the democratic party? Thank you.

Lieberman, as much as I like him, is a wall flower in the DNC.”

“This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy.

What a load of garbage, taken as it is. I can only assume the quote makes sense in its broader context.

Religion obviously isn't the key issue in the Schiavo saga. It's the societal definition of murder. Religion informs this debate, it's true. But *everyone* brings this abstract element to the debate, whether it's Christian theology, Atheist/secular "philosophy", or what have you. Two factors are more important than religion here: government at all levels is charged with protecting the helpless; and murder *must* have a definition. The government has to have a working definition, and if it is to be reasonably cautious, it should err on the side of life. It's not a great leap of logic to realize that ensuring the completion of all appropriate medical testing and consultation is not religion controlling government, but rather government acting on behalf of the helpless, striving to operate well within the paramaters of legality and morality.

Living Will + Durable Power of Attorney + All Appropriate Testing and Consulting = legal

No Documentation + Questionable diagnosis = murder

It's really that simple, and it makes me wonder what kind of people some of you anti's are.”

“And the more moderate republicans get the limelight? Still not buying it.”

““And the more moderate republicans get the limelight? Still not buying it.”

Arnold? Rudy? What's it going to take to get you to buy this concept? It's got low miles and was only driven on Sundays by a little old lady from Pasadina.

OK, having said that, hows about you and I shake hands and simply call each other a dipshlt and be done with it? It’s Phriday man! Let’s not waste it!

Are you celebrating Purim today?”

“Daughter's sick and we are trying to get ready for a birthday party for her tomorrow, so not too much celebrating for Purim this time around. But, it really is a fun holiday for the kids...”

“For the kids? I wish I had a holiday that commands me to get drunk to one degree or another! Weather you get to celebrate or not, happy Purim! :)

Where's the Manishevitts?
last edited: 3/25/05 8:11:00 AM”

“Yeah, that too! I figured if I said that, bbw would come on and tell me to get to an AA meeting!”

“I think next time you celebrate you should dress up as Jesus. That's be real popular1”

“My daughter thinks I look like him anyway.”

“I've been told I bear a resemblance to this El Greco picture:



”

“Stew El Cristo. Ok, now do that water to wine thing.”

“I tried walking on wine...

No, that was water...

maybe I got it backwards! Oh, hell, I'll just try and feed 5,000 unexpected drop-in guests with a couple of pieces of bread!”

“Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. is a conservative Republican from North Carolina who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. So it jarred all the more yesterday when Jones turned his fury on Richard N. Perle, the Pentagon adviser who provided the Bush administration with brainpower for the Iraq war.

Jones, who said he has signed more than 900 condolence letters to kin of fallen soldiers, pronounced himself "incensed" with Perle. "It is just amazing to me how we as a Congress were told we had to remove this man . . . but the reason we were given was not accurate," Jones told Perle at a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Jones said the administration should "apologize for the misinformation that was given. To me there should be somebody who is large enough to say 'We've made a mistake.' I've not heard that yet."
[...]
Perle wasn't about to provide the apology Jones sought. He disavowed any responsibility for his confident prewar assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, heaping the blame instead on "appalling incompetence" at the CIA. "There is reason to believe that we were sucked into an ill-conceived initial attack aimed at Saddam himself by double agents planted by the regime. And as we now know the estimate of Saddam's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was substantially wrong."

Jones, nearly in tears as he held up Perle's testimony, glared at the witness. "I went to a Marine's funeral who left a wife and three children, twins he never saw, and I'll tell you, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I am just incensed with this statement."

more...”

“DeLay in Hot Water Again
Friday, April 08, 2005

WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Tom DeLay came under more fire Friday for his comments suggesting that judges who refused to further consider the Terri Schiavo case could one day pay for their decisions.

The Texas Republican on Friday suggested an impeachment case could be made against judges who rebuffed Congress' will in the Schiavo case. As the severely brain-damaged Florida woman faded, Congress passed a law allowing federal courts to review the decisions of state judges who turned down her parents' efforts to resume her feeding. But state and federal judges all the way up to the Supreme Court upheld those decisions.

Arguing that federal courts had "run amok," largely because Congress failed to confront them, DeLay said: "Judicial independence does not equal judicial supremacy."

The comments came in a videotaped speech delivered to a Washington conference entitled "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith."

DeLay pointed the finger of blame at the courts for what he said was their invention of abortion rights and prohibitions of school prayer. He argued that courts had blatantly ignored the intent of Congress.

"The failure is to a great degree Congress'," DeLay said. "The response of the legislative branch has mostly been to complain. There is another way, ladies and gentlemen, and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts."


On the day Schiavo died, DeLay said: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has taken a much more conciliatory tone on the issue, saying only that he wants to maintain the current independence of the courts and hopes a compromise can avoid a fight to change the rules.

President Bush on Friday said he supports "an independent judiciary" and declined to endorse comments by DeLay that were critical of judges.

"I believe in proper checks and balances," Bush said.

The president was speaking with reporters as he flew to Texas from Rome, where he attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II.

Few other Republicans have gone as far as DeLay in criticizing an independent branch of government.

But Sen.Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said the courts had practiced nothing less than "judicial tyranny" in this case and took aim at those who say Congress overstepped its bounds in getting involved.

"[This is] routinely done by the courts — deciding they are now a super-legislature," Santorum told reporters in a conference call soon after Schiavo's death. "I'm not sure if the press realizes how serious this conflict is between the branches of government and how gravely concerned members of Congress are with [the] kinds of judicial tyranny we've seen. ...

"To suggest Congress has exceeded power shows you there are judges who simply ignore written law and substitute their own judgments."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he wondered if frustration against perceived political decisions by judges "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification."

Democrats like Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts have called the comments tantamount to inciting violence against judges.

"Mr. DeLay's escalating threats aimed at intimidating the federal judiciary fundamentally disrespect our Constitutional framework and dishonor the oath we take as public officials to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Mr. DeLay's remarks are unworthy of a leader," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Friday.

"Our Founders carefully constructed our system of checks and balances to include an independent federal judiciary as a co-equal branch of government to protect our freedoms. As Republicans increasingly use any means to justify their partisan ends, that system has never been more critical."

Bush, asked about DeLay's remarks, did say he would "continue to put judges on the bench who strictly and faithfully interpret the Constitution."

As Senate Republicans try to push through several of the president's judicial nominees, top Republicans told FOX News that the party is still smarting from what they perceive as massive public backlash against their legislation that ordered Schiavo's case to be reviewed by a federal court.

Sources said Frist and other top Republicans are annoyed at Delay for criticizing the judges who ruled against intervening in the matter.

DeLay has been making headlines lately over other issues as well. Liberal groups have launched ads attacking his allegedly unethical connections to lobbyists and former associates, which are under investigation. Other news reports have raised questions about his use of campaign cash. The House Ethics Committee rebuked him three times in one week last year.”

“Republicans worthy of praise

Ewker hasn't quite figured out this 'thread subject' thing.
LOL”

“

U.S. Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) is seen in his office on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. June 15, 2005. Jones will co-sponsor legislation about calling for the truth regarding the Downing Street Memo and reasons how the U.S. got involved in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050615/ids_photos_ts/r1798248179.jpg/print”

“So we're up to what, three?”

“Hey... I'm doing the best I can here!”